In the last two Utah cases I posted you will find that they resolved the uncertainty and title transfer issues. Read Q-2 where there is big discussion about how title transfers via operation of law. They take the implied agreement (contract law) out specifically because it gets in the way of boundary establishment. They place acquiescence more into a long term adverse possession way. No agreement needed to be proven. Uncertainty of boundary location not needed. Basically just 20 years occupation to a visible line and the title is transferred by operation of law. Doesn't violate the Statute of Frauds as operation of law is an exception to the Statue of Frauds (in its text in the statute).
The main reason I'm posting here is because it says the last post was 49 years ago 😀 and I'd like to see if I can change it. It is interesting in our state the supreme court ruled the opposite of Utah. we hold that the establishment of title by acquiescence is effective only on a finding by the court that the requirements for acquiescence have been met. Most of the confusion among surveyors and courts on the doctrine is caused by the thinking it MUST involve title transfer or establishment of title as our court mistakenly ruled. They also ruled it adverse possession later in the same ruling. When you mix the two doctrines there has to be title involved. I hope our court was looking for work when they made that ruling because there are thousands of boundaries in our state that meet the requirements.
In Virginia judicial determination of a disputed boundary line is codified common law, Va. Code § 8.01-179. Motion for judgment to establish boundary lines. For Plaintiff out of possession to prevail he must do so on the strength of his own title, and when he relies on his own paper title (i.) he must trace an unbroken chain of title back to the Commonwealth or (ii.) to a common grantor or (iii.) prove such a state of facts as will warrant the presumption of a grant.
I was the Defendant in possession so I searched both parcels title back to the Commonwealth, in 1727 Lord Fairfax granted 11,375 acres to Robert Carter. I researched deeds and drafted 8 parcel abstracts to scale and sequenced from 1727 to the present. I obtained and reviewed the 1972 retracement surveyor's notes, and discovered that he first located the monumented true corner, and then set a new corner 60' East onto my property. That is how I discovered that in the 1850's my neighbor's parcel had two West boundary lines, but my neighbor's retracement survey relied on the junior West line and then projected this error 1,000 feet East onto my property. I hired a respected local surveyor to locate these surveys on the ground, confirming my deed research.
More likely original boundaries, the descriptions are for purposes of identification but the lot as laid out originally controls.
This could have been done by the builder, see:
Bullard v. Kempff, 119 Cal. 9, 14 (1897): No survey was made at the time of the sale of these respective lots, nor were the boundaries marked upon the ground otherwise than by the improvements. It may be inferred from the description contained in each deed that Hinkel had surveyed them, or at least had measured the distance from Webster street to the west line of each lot; but it does not appear that the lines had ever been marked upon the ground, otherwise than by the improvements...But the lines designated by the improvements—they being the monuments fixed by the original survey—control distances, and fix the actual location upon the ground.
Kaiser v. Dalto, 140 Cal. 167, 172 (1903): The survey as made in the field, and the lines as actually run on the surface of the earth at the time the blocks were surveyed and the plats filed must control. The parties who own the property have a right to rely upon such lines and monuments. They must when established control courses and distances. A line, as shown by monuments and as platted by the city authorities, and as acquiesced in for many years, cannot be overturned by measurements alone.
Sadly, he could not accept that he relies upon a surveyors blunder from 1972 and that he has no title for my land within the interlock. He sued me over the boundary in 2003 and lost because he failed to prove his title, the Circuit Court judge left both lines of record, and then in 2005 the VA Supreme Court denied his appeal. Unable to accept the ruling of the court, in 2007 he came onto my land with 3 helpers and a rented bulldozer and destroyed 400' of my oak board fencing, ran over my trees and shrubs, it was horrible. I replaced my fencing immediately and posted metal no trespassing signs every 40' or so. So we sit at a Mexican standoff. I am on the true line with my neighbor clouding my title.
CLOUD ON TITLE An outstanding claim or incumbrance which, if valid, would affect or Impair the title of the owner of a particular estate, and which apparently and on its face has that effect, but which can be shown by extrinsic proof to be invalid or inapplicable to the estate in question. (Black's Law Dictionary)